The Chhattisgarh High Court re-examines the threshold for establishing the victim’s minority under the POCSO Act and clarifies that vague, contradictory, or unsupported testimony of the victim alone—when not corroborated by other material evidence—cannot sustain conviction for kidnapping or sexual offences. The judgment affirms Supreme Court precedent, narrows the scope for drawing presumptions from unreliable or poorly proved age evidence, and sets out binding principles for trial courts dealing with similar cases.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA/568/2022 of Prem Nirmalkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh |
| CNR | CGHC010108522022 |
| Date of Registration | 29-03-2022 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR CHANDRAVANSHI |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Precedent Value | Binding on Chhattisgarh subordinate courts |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Criminal Law, Evidence, POCSO Act |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that to prove the minority of the victim for offences under the POCSO Act and related IPC provisions, the prosecution must adduce valid, reliable, and appropriately proved documentary or oral evidence. Photocopies of birth certificates or school records without proof of how the date of birth was entered are insufficient. Testimony of the victim, if found vague, contradictory, or unsupported by medical or other evidence, is insufficient for conviction. Presumptions under the POCSO Act will not apply if the foundational facts are not proved by credible evidence. The trial court’s reliance solely on uncorroborated and unreliable testimony and improperly proved documentary evidence is impermissible in law. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Ganesan v. State (2020) 10 SCC 573; Nirmal Prem Kumar v. State (2024 INSC 193) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Supreme Court precedents clarifying circumstances under which sole testimony of a prosecutrix is sufficient, and principles for appreciating proof of age under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act and Section 35 of the Evidence Act |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | A complaint was lodged by the mother of a minor girl regarding disappearance at night. Victim was recovered from a public garden, alleged sexual relations by the accused, and documentary evidence like birth certificates and school records produced. Discrepancies arose regarding proof of age and veracity of victim’s testimony; medical evidence gave no definitive support to the prosecution’s case. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, especially on evidentiary requirements in POCSO and sexual offences |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Explicit clarification that mere photocopies of school records or date of birth entries, without proof as to who made the entries or how the information was entered, are insufficient to prove minority for POCSO or related IPC offences.
- Reliance solely on the victim’s testimony is impermissible if the testimony is vague, contradictory, or unsupported by medical and other evidence—even for sexual offences.
- Presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act only arises if foundational facts are credibly proved.
- The High Court reiterates and applies recent Supreme Court standards for “sterling witness” credibility and cautions against convictions based on uncorroborated, unreliable sole testimony.
- Sets out a higher evidentiary threshold for the prosecution regarding both age and circumstances of the alleged offence.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court examined the various documents produced to establish the age of the victim (birth certificate, school progress report, Dakhil Kharij Register), and found that none were proved in accordance with law; the person who made the entry was not produced, nor was the process by which the date of birth entered substantiated.
- Section 35 of the Evidence Act and Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, were considered with respect to the mode of proving age; only documents which are proved and shown to have been prepared at the relevant time and by the competent authority may be relied upon.
- In view of deposition by the parents (admitting lack of knowledge or clarity about date of birth and family circumstances indicating the victim was likely above the age threshold), the benefit of doubt was given on minority.
- Analysing the prosecution’s case regarding force or exploitation, the court found that the victim’s testimony was not consistent or supported by independent medical or other evidence; the victim’s family and other material witnesses did not corroborate her statement.
- Relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Ganesan and Nirmal Prem Kumar, High Court clarified that conviction for sexual offences is possible on sole testimony only if it is of sterling quality—marked by high consistency, credibility, and reliability.
- Since the prosecution’s evidence failed on proof of age and reliability of incident narrative, and considering the lack of corroboration by other witnesses, the High Court held that conviction solely on such evidence is not legally sustainable.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant)
- Submission that minority was not proved in accordance with law; documentary evidence was not properly proved nor substantiated by expert or witness testimony.
- Photocopies of the birth certificate and school register not admissible or reliable evidence.
- Victim’s own actions (leaving home on her own) and evidence of love affair negated the charge of kidnapping or lack of consent.
- Lack of external or internal injuries; no direct support from parents or medical evidence for prosecution version.
Respondent (State)
- The trial court’s judgment is the result of appropriate appreciation of evidence and is not liable to be disturbed.
Factual Background
The mother of a girl aged approximately 16 years lodged a report in September 2018 alleging disappearance of her minor daughter at night. Shortly thereafter, the girl was recovered from a public garden. She alleged in her statement that the appellant took her to the garden and engaged in forcible sexual relations. Police seized a photocopy of the birth certificate, progress reports, and school register entries indicating her age. Medical examination found no injuries or conclusive evidence of recent intercourse. During trial, gaps arose in proving the girl’s age and in the consistency of her version of events; key relatives did not support the prosecution’s case in their depositions.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act: The court reiterated requirements regarding the admissibility and proof of public records, emphasizing that mere photocopies and unproven entries do not suffice as evidence of age.
- Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: Referred to as the statutory basis for proving age; the court insisted on rigorous adherence to the provision’s standards.
- Section 29 of the POCSO Act: Discussed regarding the presumption of guilt, but clarified that the presumption is not automatic and applies only if foundational facts (such as established minority) are proved by the prosecution.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate concurring or dissenting opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- Application of Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for operational period of bail bonds post-acquittal.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed: Affirms Supreme Court requirement for strict proof in sexual offences and age determination; reiterates standards for sufficiency and reliability of sole testimony.